SOCIALISM, FIRST PHASE OF COMMUNIST SOCIETY

Indispensability of a Period of Transition

In the same way as a house or some other structure can be built of the material available to builders, so socialism, this new social edifice, is created from the material inherited by people from capitalism. It is built on the basis of the achievements of capitalist production, technology, science and culture, by people, who have, in the main, reached adulthood and been brought up under capitalism. For all that socialism is a qualitatively new society. Founded on private ownership and exploitation, the economy, social relations and spiritual culture of capitalism serve the interests of an insignificant minority, of the owners of the means of production, while socialism, which rests on public ownership, co-operation and mutual assistance, is a society of working people for working people. Capitalism is a sporadically developing society, while socialism is a consciously guided society. Naturally, socialism cannot be built without radical qualitative changes in all spheres of social life. At this point it would be well to emphasise that these changes are violently resisted by the deposed exploiting classes, chiefly by the bourgeoisie.

A period of transition from capitalism to socialism is necessary in order to break the resistance of the exploiters and carry out fundamental socialist reforms in economy, social relations and spiritual life with the purpose of placing them in the service of the working man and build a society which is consciously guided by man in the interests of the working people.

This is a period when the bourgeoisie is already deposed but capitalism has not been completely uprooted and the exploiting classes, though no longer in power, have not ceased their struggle against the victorious working class, a period when fundamental socialist changes are being put into effect but socialism has not yet been built.

This, Lenin wrote, is “a state of transition—of transition from the old to the new—a state of growth of what is new”. [152•* In other words, the period of transition is a period of the shaping and growth of socialist society, a period of struggle between dying capitalism and incipient socialism.

* * *

General Laws and Diversify of the Forms of Socialist Construction

The experience that has been gained in building socialism in the U.S.S.R. and other countries makes it possible to assert that the basic ways and means of building the new society are intransient. They have repeated and will continue to repeat themselves under conformable conditions in countries that have embarked upon socialist construction. They thereby acquire the significance of general laws governing the transition from capitalism to socialism.

Yet these general laws do not by any means operate identically in different countries. Each country building socialism has its own level of economic and cultural development, history, natural conditions and reserves of natural wealth, the balance of class forces, national peculiarities, way of thinking and traditions, and so forth. Besides, the international conditions under which the various countries build socialism likewise differ. Hence, in each country the transition from capitalism to socialism has features of its own. “All nations,” Lenin wrote, “will arrive at socialism—this is inevitable, but all will do so in not exactly the same way, each will contribute something of its own to some form of democracy, to some variety of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to the varying rate of socialist transformations in the different aspects of social life.” [152•** In the different countries, the features of socialist construction concern not the essence but the forms, methods, rates and intensity of socialist transformations. This does not in the least abrogate the general laws.

Let us now dwell in greater detail on the unity between the general laws and the diverse forms of socialist construction in different countries.

* * *

Dictatorship of the Proletariat—the Decisive Condition for Socialist Construction

The dictatorship of the proletariat emerges as the result of a successful socialist revolution, which smashes the bourgeois state machine. It is a qualitatively new type of state, fundamentally differing from all former states by its class character, the forms of political organisation and the role it is called upon to play.

All former types of states were weapons of the exploiting classes, weapons for the suppression of the working people, and their purpose was to consolidate the exploiting system and perpetuate the division of society into oppressors and the oppressed. The proletarian dictatorship signifies the power of the working class, which together with all other working people, destroys capitalism and builds a new society, a society without hostile classes and without exploitation.

What are the basic tasks of this dictatorship?

The class struggle does not cease during the period of transition. Deprived of political supremacy, the exploiting classes, primarily the bourgeoisie, cannot reconcile themselves to their defeat, to the loss of power and privileges, and therefore savagely resist the new power. The dictatorship of the proletariat is needed chiefly to smash the resistance of the deposed exploiting classes, transfer the means of production to the people and defend and consolidate the revolutionary gains against encroachment by internal and external enemies.

This is the task of the proletarian dictatorship linked up with violence with regard to the exploiters.

But, for the proletariat, the suppression of the bourgeoisie is not an end in itself. The principal task is to build a socialist society and, mainly, a socialist economy. Here the difficulty is that when the socialist revolution begins there is no ready-made pattern of the socialist way of life. The 154proletarian dictatorship is therefore called upon to direct economic development and create a new type of economy—a socialist economy founded on social ownership—build up a new type of social relations and educate the people in the spirit of socialism. In addition, it has to administer the new society according to a plan and defend its achievements against reactionary elements within the country and, in particular, against international imperialism.

Such is the creative, administrative function of the proletarian dictatorship.

Along with these, so to speak, national functions, the proletarian dictatorship carries out an important internationalist function: it does its utmost, mainly by the example of successful economic development, to facilitate the revolutionary struggle of the working people of the capitalist countries, rendering them political, material and moral support. Thereby it helps to further the world revolutionary process, destroy capitalism and firmly establish socialism throughout the world.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a qualitatively new and higher type of democracy. In other words, it brings democracy to the overwhelming majority of the people and denies it to exploiters and oppressors. Under this dictatorship, the qualitatively new type of democracy issues from the very nature of the proletarian state, from its objectives and tasks. The proletariat can break the resistance of the exploiting classes, retain power, build socialism and thereby bring a happy life to the whole people only on the basis of a firm alliance with all working people, with all democratic forces. The alliance between the working class and the semi-proletarian sections of town and country, mainly the peasants, with the proletariat playing the leading role in this alliance, is thus the foundation of the proletarian dictatorship and most fully and accurately mirrors the genuinely democratic nature of the proletarian state.

The proletarian dictatorship consists of a system of state and non-state (Party and mass) organisations. The pivot of this system is the Communist Party, which directs the building of socialism. Resting on its knowledge of the laws of social development and acting through state and mass organisations, the Party heads the struggle of the people against the exploiting classes during the period of transition and carries out socialist reforms. The Party’s links with the masses, formed during the struggle against capitalism, develop into unity between it and the people. This unity is the main earnest of success in the building of socialist society.

The establishment of the proletarian dictatorship and the leading role played by the Marxist party in the administration of the state are, as we have just shown, the key law of the transition from capitalism to socialism. However, the form of this dictatorship depends upon the concrete situation obtaining in the different countries. In the Soviet Union it took the form of Soviets of Working People’s Deputies, and in other countries the form of a People’s Democracy. As distinct from the one-party system in the Soviet Union, the political system in the People’s Democracies consists of several parties, which co-operate with the ruling, Communist Party in the building of socialism. In the Soviet Union the factors giving rise to the one-party system were the difficulties accruing from the existence of a proletarian dictatorship in only one country in the world, the hostile capitalist encirclement and the refusal of the pettybourgeois parties (the Menshevik and Socialist–Revolutionary parties) to co-operate with the Communists in building the new society and their defection to the counter–revolutionary forces.

These distinctions between the Soviets and the People’s Democracy do not alter the substance of the political power, inasmuch as in both cases the power is in the hands of the working class. In future the transition period will unquestionably take other forms. The ways and means of establishing the proletarian dictatorship may likewise be different, i.e., they may be peaceful or non-peaceful. In the Soviet Union it was instituted in a non-peaceful manner. A civil war had to be fought because the deposed bourgeoisie, physically aided by the foreign imperialists, took up arms against the new government. In this situation the working people had no alternative but to fight in order to uphold the Revolution.

A different situation obtained in the European socialist countries. The main counter-revolutionary forces (the fascists and elements allied with them) were smashed during the Second World War and that left the deposed bourgeoisie without the machinery to put up serious armed resistance to the new power. The foreign imperialists were deferred from armed intervention by the powerful Soviet Army. That made it possible to install the proletarian dictatorship without civil war.

A unique form of the proletarian dictatorship arose in Cuba. No general elections, in the usual meaning of the word, have yet taken place in that country and there are no elective organs of state power such as Soviets of Working People’s Deputies or organs of a People’s Democracy. Socialist reforms are carried out by the revolutionary government headed by the Communist Party. This system of state power was fashioned under the influence of the situation in which the Cuban revolution developed, a situation where the country had to be defended against U.S. aggression.

In the Republic of Cuba basic laws and political decisions are passed after nation-wide discussions and, frequently, voting by the people at mass rallies. The President, Prime Minister and Ministers keep in constant touch with the people and all more or less important issues are discussed in the press and over the radio and TV networks.

The example of Cuba convincingly shows that there are no hard and fast patterns for revolution.

Economic Reforms

Economy is the backbone of social life, and economic reforms, primarily the abolition of private ownership and the establishment of common ownership are of decisive importance in the transition period. Socialist nationalisation is the fundamental means of establishing public ownership. When we speak of socialist nationalisation we mean the expropriation of the factories, marine and railway transport, power stations, large agricultural and trade enterprises and other basic means of production from the bourgeoisie and their transfer to the ownership of the proletarian state. Thus big capitalist ownership is abolished in a revolutionary way and superseded by socialist public ownership. The nationalisation of large-scale industries, foreign trade and the banks is of particular importance because it gives the state the levers enabling it to promote economic development for the benefit of the people, organise the management of the economy and control other social 157processes, plan production, accounting and distribution and ensure economic independence.

Nationalisation gives rise to a socialist system of economy founded on public ownership with co-operation and mutual assistance underlying the relations of production and with social forms of distribution according to work. This system puts an end to exploitation, to the antagonisms between the social nature of production and the private form of appropriation inherent in capitalist society, and to sporadic development, which gradually gives way to planning. Nationalised enterprises give the proletarian state a firm economic foundation, which expands and grows stronger with progress towards socialism.

Depending upon the situation, nationalisation is implemented directly or indirectly, i.e., by a series of intermediate phases.

One of these phases is state capitalism, which takes the form of concessions, the lease of enterprises to private employers, mixed state-private enterprises, and so forth. However, the socio-economic character of all these forms is the same: all these enterprises function with the aid of private capital but are controlled by the proletarian state; they fulfil the demands of the proletarian state and are, in the final analysis, used by it to further the building of socialism.

Another form of transition to nationalisation is control of capitalist enterprises by the workers employed in them. This control covers the organisation and management of production, the hire and discharge of workers and office employees, the quality of the output and its distribution, the system of payment, and so forth. In the process of this control the working people acquire experience of managing production, distribution, financing, accounting and other aspects of industry.

Various forms of workers’ control of capitalist enterprises were in operation in Russia and the accumulated experience was used and enriched in other socialist countries. The workers’ councils, factory production commissions and factory committees set up in these countries were an important step towards nationalisation.

Land belonging to big landowners is also nationalised (completely or partly) during the period of transition. In 158the Soviet Union, for example, all the land was nationalised and a large portion of it was turned over to the peasants for their free use in perpetuity. Another portion was used by the state for the setting up of state farms. In other countries part of the land has been nationalised and part given to the peasants.

The complete triumph of the socialist system of economy necessarily presupposes the reorganisation of the small peasant farms in order to establish socialist ownership in agriculture.

It would seem that nothing would be simpler than to nationalise the small farms and thus make them the property of the state. But this is something that cannot be done under any circumstances, for although the peasant owns property he is not an exploiter. He wins his livelihood by his own labour and, naturally, his property cannot be expropriated in the same way as that of the big capitalist or landowner. Besides, the psychology of the peasant, who is attached to his tiny plot of land, must be taken into consideration.

Land-hungry and landless peasants and farm labourers actively participate in the revolution in the hope of receiving land and thus being assured of a livelihood. The victorious revolution must not disappoint them. In the course of the revolution a considerable portion of the land, belonging to big landowners and capitalists is usually turned over to those who till it, i.e., the farm labourers and the poor and the middle peasants, with the result that far from being amalgamated agriculture becomes still more scattered because the number of small producers increases.

In this situation the only possible way to reorganise agriculture along socialist lines is to set up agricultural co–operatives. The small private farms voluntarily unite to form large co-operatives.

In these co-operatives labour and the basic means of production are socialised. The type of co-operative depends upon the extent to which socialisation is put into effect. In the U.S.S.R. and other socialist countries there were three main types of co-operatives:

1. Associations for the joint cultivation of the land. These are the lowest, initial type of co-operatives, where 159socialisation covers only labour: the peasants pool their labour for various jobs.

2. Co-operatives where the means of production and labour are socialised and the land remains the property of the peasants. Incomes are distributed correspondingly: the larger portion according to work, and a smaller portion according to the size of the plot of land.

3. The agricultural artel. Here socialisation embraces the land, labour and the means of production, and the entire income is distributed according to work. This is a higher type of co-operative. In the Soviet Union it is called a collective farm.

The setting up of co-operatives gradually abolishes smallscale private ownership in favour of socialist public ownership. Essentially, this is identical with state socialist ownership, inasmuch as it rules out exploitation and establishes the principle of distribution according to work. However, unlike state property, co-operative property belongs not to the whole people but to a group of people, to the members of the co-operative. This may be defined as group socialist ownership.

The socialisation of labour and the means of production at the co-operatives does not imply the abolition of personal husbandries. A member of a co-operative owns a house, items of household use, productive livestock, and certain implements allowing him to cultivate a subsidiary plot of land turned over to his possession (or ownership).

In the U.S.S.R. the plan for organising agricultural cooperatives was drawn up by Lenin. Its basic principle is that peasants should join co-operatives voluntarily. The Communist Party, opposing the forcible planting of cooperatives against the wishes of the peasants, emphasised that peasants should be drawn into co-operatives by persuasion, by a concrete demonstration of the advantages of the co-operatives over the small goods private economy.

Lenin’s socialist co-operative plan envisages gradual socialist reforms in the countryside, a transition from the lowest to the highest type of co-operative with due account of geographical, economical, national and other concrete conditions. It presupposes consistent democracy in the management of the co-operatives and the coupling of personal with social interests.160

Lenin attached special importance to aid to the co–operatives from the proletarian state and to strengthening and developing the alliance between the working class and the peasants. By supplying the co-operatives with machinery, helping them to apply the achievements of agricultural science, improve and irrigate land, and promoting state and co-operative trade between town and country, the proletarian state facilitates the growth of farm production and of the peasants’ standard of living. On their part, the peasants respect and trust the working class and become active in building socialism when they see that the proletarian state renders them day-to-day assistance and support.

Thanks to the co-operatives agricultural production makes rapid headway. Being large production units they give scope for the utilisation of modern machines and scientific advances and make it possible to use manpower and socialised means of production more rationally. Moreover, socialist ownership makes it possible to direct agriculture as well, to draw it into the sphere of state planning and administration. Small, individual farms developing in a haphazard fashion cannot be directed and their output cannot be planned. On the other hand, with the setting up of co-operatives farm output begins to rise. If we take the total agricultural output of Russia in 1913 as our initial index (100), we shall find that in 1940 (when collectivisation was completed) farm production rose 41 per cent. At the same time, due to rapid industrialisation there has been a considerable decrease of the rural population.

In addition to co-operatives (collective farms) there are large state farms that belong to the whole people.

Collectivisation and the organisation of state farms put an end to the social stratification of peasants into poor and middle peasants and kulaks and rule out the possibility of private capitalist elements—kulaks and private traders—existing, let alone arising in the countryside. Socialism is thereby consolidated in agriculture as well. The socialist mode of production ceases to be one of several systems, becoming the only system in all branches of economy and marking the complete economic triumph of socialism.

Socialist industrialisation, i.e., the building up of a modern, large-scale industry founded on the latest scientific and technical achievements, is an indispensable condition of socialism, particularly in countries with a small or undeveloped industry.

Heavy industry, the foundation of foundations of socialist society, is built up in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism. “A large-scale machine industry capable of reorganising agriculture is the only material basis that is possible for socialism,” Lenin wrote. [161•*

Socialist industrialisation ensures uninterrupted scientific and technical progress in the economy, enhances labour productivity, increases the machine-to-worker ratio and improves working conditions. It provides a modern technical basis for all branches of the economy, opens the road to scientific, technical and cultural progress, and facilitates the achievement and consolidation of a country’s economic and political independence and the strengthening of its defence capacity in face of reactionary imperialist forces.

Its impact on a country’s inner political life is likewise tremendous. The growth of large-scale industry is accompanied by the numerical growth of the working class and a steady enhancement of its role and importance in society, of its influence over other classes and social strata. In other words, industrialisation enlarges and strengthens both the economic and the political foundation of the proletarian state, i.e., it strengthens the position of the socialist social forces.

It is important to note that there is a radical difference between socialist and capitalist industrialisation. Capitalist industrialisation is attended by the exploitation of the working people, the plundering of less developed countries or the receipt of military tribute from defeated nations. Socialist industrialisation proceeds primarily at the expense of inner accumulations obtained by boosting labour productivity, planning economic development, strict economy and the rational utilisation of material, manpower and financial resources.

The aims pursued by socialist industrialisation are likewise radically different. Capitalist industrialisation seeks to ensure the capitalists with the largest possible profits, while socialist industrialisation is subordinated to the humane 162objective of serving the working people, satisfying their requirements and promoting their all-round development.

Industrialisation is not an easy task. It requires a vast labour effort on the part of the people, huge financial investments and, frequently, sacrifice. The difficulties encountered by the Soviet people were exceptionally formidable because they pioneered the building of socialism. The country was backward and the economy was dislocated by the First World War and then the Civil War. The then young Soviet Republic was surrounded by enemies who did their utmost to halt the building of socialism, resorting to all means ranging from an economic blockade to armed intervention. Soviet Russia was deprived of the possibility of obtaining loans: the imperialists gave a country credit in return for some inroad into its political independence, and this, naturally, was something the workers and peasants were not prepared to grant. They had not driven out their own capitalists only to become bondsmen to foreign capitalists.

There was only one way out: to depend upon the will, energy and labour of the revolutionary people. In face of difficulties and hardship, the Soviet people built a firstclass industry, which they are now enlarging and improving.

Industrialisation changed the Soviet Union beyond recognition. New industries and numerous large factories and power stations sprang up. Compared with 1913, total industrial output increased 750 per cent in 1940, while the output of large-scale industry rose nearly 12-fold and the power output increased 225-fold. Thanks to industrialisation, the Soviet Union, which had had to import machines, began not only to manufacture but also to export modern machinery and equipment. It became possible to promote collective farming on a large scale and supply it with the latest types of machines, raise the standard of living and increase the country’s defence capacity.

Industrialisation has been markedly successful in other socialist countries as well. Their industrial product is steadily growing, and a particularly rapid expansion is registered by power engineering, heavy engineering, chemical and other industries forming the basis of the economy and ensuring technical progress. The share of these industries in the total industrial output increased in the period 1951–65: in Bulgaria from 13.7 to 22.3 per cent, in Hungary from 16332.5 to 38.3 per cent, in the German Democratic Republic from 38.3 to 51.2 per cent, in Mongolia from 4.6 to 11.7 per cent, in Poland from 14.4 to 35.9 per cent, in Rumania from 18.6 to 40.8 per cent, and in Czechoslovakia from 23.2 to 41.1 per cent.

Being general laws of socialist construction, nationalisation, the co-operation of agriculture and industrialisation were implemented in different ways by countries building socialism. In the Soviet Union nationalisation was achieved rapidly, in a matter of a few months (December 1917 to June 1918). Transitional forms, state capitalism particularly, did not become widespread for the sole reason that the bourgeoisie refused to accept them and engaged in sabotage wherever possible. In the People’s Democracies nationalisation took several years. First the enterprises belonging to nazi collaborators were confiscated and then other enterprises were nationalised gradually. Various forms of state capitalism, especially mixed enterprises, were widespread. In some countries the former owners were paid compensation for the confiscated enterprises. No compensation was paid out in the Soviet Union.

The forms of the socialist changes in agriculture were likewise dissimilar in different countries. In Czechoslovakia, for instance, four different types of agricultural co–operatives have taken shape. The difference between them is in the extent to which the means of production and labour are socialised. In Cuba with its huge sugar and other plantations there are large people’s estates, which now account for more than three-fourth’s of the sugar-cane output, the entire output of industrial crops and half of all the cattle.

The conditions under which socialism was built in the U.S.S.R., particularly the fact that this building proceeded in only one country, which, in addition, was encircled by hostile imperialist powers, made it imperative to speed up industrialisation, especially the development of the basic industries. The Soviet Union could confidently hold its own against the aggressive forces of imperialism only after it had surmounted its backwardness, built up a modern industry and, on that basis, strengthened its defences. In this connection, as we have already pointed out, the people had to face serious difficulties and hardships. As regards the People’s Democracies, they were delivered from many of 164these difficulties. They did not have to speed up industrialisation and develop all branches of industries because they had the possibility of taking advantage of the benefits of the socialist division of labour, the experience and help of the U.S.S.R. and the assistance of other socialist countries.

* * *

Reforms in National Relations

One of the cardinal tasks of the period of transition is to effect socialist changes in the sphere of relations between nationalities. This is a particularly pressing task in a multinational country, where in addition to the ruling nation there were subject, oppressed nations. This was the case with old Russia, which had scores of big and small nations.

Capitalism is a society in which national oppression is rife, in which some nations enslave others. This gives the socialist revolution the task of abolishing not only social, class oppression but also its inescapable fellow travellernational oppression.

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote: “In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put to an end, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put to an end. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.”

A programme for settling the nationalities problem, drawing nations together and giving them equal opportunities for progress was drawn up by Lenin. The principles underlying it were: comprehensive democratisation of social life, genuine equality for all races and nations, the right of nations to self-determination up to the formation of independent states, and the internationalist solidarity of the working class of all nationalities in the country. Permeated with profound respect for big and small nations and with concern for their most cherished needs and aspirations, this programme united the workers and peasants of the numerous nationalities of Russia into an unbreakable alliance headed by the working class, an alliance which was a key factor of the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution.

The Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia, adopted by the Soviet Government on November 15, 1917, proclaimed the abolition of national oppression and the 165establishment of political and juridical equality for all the numerous nations and nationalities inhabiting the country. However, the emancipation of nations could not be confined to the abolition of oppression and the granting of political and juridical equality. The main thing was to surmount the age-old economic and cultural backwardness inherited from the Russian autocracy. The Soviet socialist state successfully resolved this problem as well, not only granting the formerly oppressed nations the right to free development but also helping them to end their backwardness and achieve a high level of economic and cultural development.

After restoring the national economy, which had been dislocated by the First World War and the Civil War, the Communist Party and the Soviet Government initiated the industrialisation of the non-Russian republics. Thanks to the constant concern displayed by the Party and the government and the disinterested aid rendered by other nations, chiefly the Russian, new industries which ensured unprecedented rates of development mushroomed in the formerly undeveloped republics. Agriculture was completely reorganised. Today it consists entirely of highly mechanised collective and state farms.

Economic development has given all the Soviet republics well-trained national cadres and a huge army of intellectuals. Cultural backwardness has become a thing of the past. It may be stated that the peoples of the Soviet Union have accomplished not only a sweeping economic but also a thorough-going cultural revolution.

Illiteracy has been wiped out and today all the Soviet republics have large networks of schools, institutions of higher learning and research and cultural establishments. A new culture that is socialist in content and national in form has blossomed forth. In cultural development the nonRussian Soviet republics have outstripped not only the Eastern capitalist countries but also some of the capitalist countries of the West.

Socialist construction thus changed the non-Russian regions of the Soviet Union from economically and culturally backward sources of agrarian and other raw materials into advanced, sovereign socialist states each with a versatile industry, a productive agriculture, a working class and a large army of intellectuals. The formerly backward peoples 166have become qualitatively new, socialist nations united by a community of economic, political and spiritual interests in a single Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Proletarian internationalism has become firmly entrenched in the ideology of these nations.

The settlement of the nationalities problem in the U.S.S.R., one of the most acute and complicated problems of mankind’s development ? becomes all the more significant in view of the fact that many of the peoples inhabiting the Soviet Union had by-passed the capitalist stage when they embarked upon socialist development. The proletarian dictatorship made it possible for them to travel all the way from feudal and even pre-feudal relations to socialism in the life-time of a single generation.

This is striking proof of the triumph of scientific socialism, the triumph of proletarian internationalism.

The Soviet experience has convincingly shown that only the socialist revolution creates the conditions for the complete eradication of national oppression, for the voluntary integration of free and equal peoples in a single state and for drawing nations ever closer together and promoting their prosperity. Today this experience is used and enriched by the socialist countries in the settlement of the nationalities problem within each country separately and in the socialist community of nations as a whole. This problem has been successfully settled in nationally heterogeneous countries like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, where socialist construction is drawing together nations and nationalities, who are creating a new society and furthering its economy and culture. This experience is also valuable for the peoples of the new sovereign national states that have shaken off the colonial yoke and for peoples who are fighting for liberation from colonialism. For these peoples the successes of the Soviet Union are a source of inspiration and strength in their bitter struggle against imperialism and colonialism. They see their future in the present of the socialist nations.

Cultural Revolution

In the cultural revolution, which is a component of the transition from capitalism to socialism, the proletariat creates its class, socialist culture to replace the old, bourgeois culture. In the process of creating this new culture the proletariat does 167not reject bourgeois culture in toto. It accepts the best achievements of that culture, critically recasts them and places them in the service of the people. The new, socialist culture can be created only by mastering and critically processing the cultural heritage of the past. That is exactly what the working class does and, in addition, it raises the achievements of the past to a new level.

The central task of the cultural revolution is to mould a truly people’s culture. This is attained, first and foremost, by making all spiritual wealth, all the achievements of science and art the property of the people and, secondly, by vigorously raising the level of education and culture, giving broad scope for talent, for the full development of the people’s creative powers.

A cultural revolution is indispensable in both culturally developed and backward countries. Even in the most highly developed capitalist country a considerable section of the population—working people, as a rule—is denied the possibility of enjoying the benefits of culture. Spiritual activities and mental work are monopolised by the ruling classes, who in most cases restrict the working people’s cultural development to the minimum needed by them to fulfil their functions in production. The need for a cultural revolution is all the more glaring in backward countries.

The cultural revolution is not a sudden, transient act but a gradual process requiring a more or less prolonged span of time, painstaking and persevering work and skilful organisation. Its problems cannot be resolved by decrees, with a stroke of the pen. In order to channel the people’s natural thirst for knowledge and culture in the required direction they must be made to appreciate the need for cultural growth. A large material basis is necessary as the foundation for the new, socialist culture. This basis emerges in the process of socialist economic reforms, in the process of nationalisation, industrialisation and collectivisation.

The proletarian state nationalises and places at the disposal of the people all cultural institutions and all means of spiritual influence—theatres, museums, cinemas, radio stations, the press, and so forth—and builds new cultural centres. It undertakes the training and education of the working people and fundamentally reorganises the system of general and special education in the interests of the 168people, thereby giving them hitherto unparalleled opportunities to master the achievements of human culture and raise the level of their general and special education.

The opportunist theoreticians of the Second International maintained that the working class should make no attempt to seize power until it had reached a certain cultural level and had an adequate number of intellectuals. Their argument was that the “uncouth” masses were unable to administer a country and build a socialist society.

Lenin exposed the hollowness of these arguments and proved that if the prerequisites are at hand the proletariat must forthwith seize power and then tirelessly work to raise the people’s cultural level, all the more so that the conditions for this are created by the proletarian dictatorship.

That is exactly how the proletariat of Russia and a number of other countries acted. They did not wait for the cultural level to rise to that unknown standard prescribed by the opportunists, for if they had they would have had to wait endlessly—the capitalists were doing everything in their power to keep the people in darkness and ignorance: it is easier to exploit illiterate, downtrodden people with impunity.

In alliance with other working people, the Russian proletariat seized power in a culturally backward country, a country where the bulk of the population was illiterate and where enlightenment and education were in a state of decline. After taking over power it cleared the road for a cultural revival. Illiteracy was, in the main, wiped out by 1937, i.e., by the time the period of transition came to an end. By that year there were general education and special secondary and higher schools, libraries, reading-rooms, museums, clubs and other cultural institutions in every part of the country. In that period the number of pupils in general education schools alone increased nearly 3.5-fold. Striking advances have been made in enlightenment and education in the non-Russian Soviet republics.

Socialist cultures are rapidly drawing closer together and there is a distinct trend towards the spiritual cohesion of the peoples of the socialist commonwealth on the foundation of Marxism-Leninism. In the sphere of creative endeavour and ideas the socialist system is moving from victory to victory over the capitalist system.

* * *

The general laws of socialist construction thus manifest themselves in their own way in different countries. This conclusion is borne out by the practice of building socialism in the U.S.S.R. and other socialist countries. In a number of European and Asian countries and in Cuba the socialist revolutions were a specific repetition of the fundamental laws, which first came to the fore in the socialist revolution in Russia. In order to further the building of socialism successfully these general laws must be developed, enriched and skilfully applied in the various countries, and dogmatism, revisionism and the absolutisation of general laws and specific conditions must be resolutely opposed.

Notes

[161•*] Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 459.

[152•**] Ibid., Vol. 23, pp. 69–70.

[152•*] Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 209.